Forsythe, M.D., H.M.D. v. Renown Regional Medical Center

District Court, D. Nevada

Forsythe, M.D., H.M.D. v. Renown Regional Medical Center

Trial Court Opinion

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JAMES W. FORSYTHE, M.D., H.M.D., Case No. 3:24-cv-00524-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 RENOWN REGIONAL MEDICAL 9 CENTER, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This case was recently filed, and even more recently assigned to me. (ECF Nos. 13 1, 4.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking my recusal. (ECF No. 5 (“Motion”).) 14 As further explained below, I will grant the motion and recuse from this case because I 15 agree with Plaintiff that my impartiality could be reasonably questioned were I to preside 16 over it. 17 I begin my review of Plaintiff’s Motion from the “general proposition” that I must 18 participate in cases assigned to me. United States v. Holland,

519 F.3d 909, 912

(9th Cir. 19 2008). But I should recuse if my “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id.; see 20 also

28 U.S.C. § 455

(a). Section 455(a) requires an objective inquiry. See Holland, 519 21 F.3d at 912-14. However, this objective standard “must not be so broadly construed that 22 it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that recusal is mandated upon the merest 23 unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.” Id. at 913 (citation omitted). As 24 to Section 455(b)(1), I must also disqualify myself where I have “a personal bias or 25 prejudice concerning a party[.]”

28 U.S.C. § 455

(b)(1). The parties may not waive any 26 basis for disqualification under subsection (b) but, “[w]here the ground for disqualification 27 arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a 28 full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.”

28 U.S.C. § 455

(e). 1 While | have only a vague recollection about the lawsuit that is referenced in the 2 || Motion, given the nature of that lawsuit and the conduct surrounding it, | find that my 3 || impartiality might reasonably be questioned were | to preside over this case. 4 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's recusal motion (ECF No. 5) is granted. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly reassign this case to another district 6 || judge. 7 DATED THIS 3 Day of December 2024.

9 MIRANDA M. DU 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown